Σχόλια 0

Το κείμενο του εγγράφου

July 2003Greenpeace Environmental Tr u s tCanonbury VillasLondon N1 2PNwww.greenpeace.org.ukISBN 1-903907-05-5Published by Greenpeace Environmental Tr u s tCanonbury Villas, London N1 2PNISBN 1-903907-05-5Printed on 100% recycled paper1Future Technologies, Today's ChoicesList of Ta b l e s2Abbreviations and Acronyms3F o r e w o r d4Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace Chief ScientistA c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s91 .I n t r o d u c t i o n1 . 1 About nanotechnology,a rtificial intelligence and robotics101 . 2 R e p o rt structure101 . 3 Key references112 .N a n o t e c h n o l o g y2 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n122 . 1 . 1 About nanotechnology132 . 1 . 2 Where are we now?132 . 2 Research and Development2 . 2 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n142 . 2 . 2 Novel materials142 . 2 . 3 N a n o t u b e s142 . 2 . 4 Tools and fabrication162 . 2 . 5 Public funding forresearch and development182 . 3 Applications and Markets2 . 3 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n212 . 3 . 2 I n f o r m a t i c s222 . 3 . 3 Pharmaceuticals and medicine252 . 3 . 4 E n e r g y272 . 3 . 5 D e f e n c e292 . 3 . 6 Corporate funding312 . 4 Reality and Hype2 . 4 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n322 . 4 . 2 Molecular nanotechnology332 . 4 . 3 Fundamental barriers to these visions352 . 5 C o n c e r n s2 . 5 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n352 . 5 . 2 Environmental concerns362 . 5 . 3 Socio-political concerns372 . 5 . 4 Public acceptance of nanotechnology392 . 5 . 5 The regulation debate402 . 6 D i s c u s s i o n413. Artificial Intelligenceand Robotics3 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n423 . 1 . 1 About AI and robotics423 . 1 . 2 Where are we now?423 . 2 Aspects of Research3 . 2 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n433 . 2 . 2 L e a r n i n g443 . 2 . 3 Reasoning about plans,programs and action453 . 2 . 4 Logical AI453 . 2 . 5 C o l l a b o r a t i o n453 . 2 . 6 P e r c e p t i o n463 . 2 . 7 Human–computer interaction463 . 2 . 8 Public funding463 . 3 A p p l i c a t i o n s3 . 3 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n493 . 3 . 2 Intelligent simulation systems493 . 3 . 3 Intelligent information resources503 . 3 . 4 Intelligent project coaches503 . 3 . 5 R o b o t i c s523 . 3 . 6 Corporate funding533 . 4 Reality and Hype3 . 4 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n543 . 4 . 2 Barriers to strong AI543 . 4 . 3 A future for strong AI?553 . 5 C o n c e r n s3 . 5 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n563 . 5 . 2 Predictive intelligence563 . 5 . 3 AI and robotic autonomy573 . 6 D i s c u s s i o n594 .C o n c l u s i o n60E n d n o t e s62R e f e r e n c e s63C o n t e n t s2Table 1:Summary of the major nanomaterials currently in research anddevelopment and their potential applications.Table 2:Applications for new materials and devices resulting from self-assemblyand self-organisation.Table 3:World-wide government funding for nanotechnologyresearch and development.Table 4:Breakdown of spending on the US’s National NanotechnologyInitiative from 2001–2003.Table 5:Top five government spending on nanotechnology in the Far East in 2002.Table 6:Estimated Japanese government nanotechnology researchand development expenditures.Table 7:Top six European government nanotechnology spending from 1998–2000.Table 8:Summary of future estimated global markets in nanotechnology.Table 9:Anticipated technological computing developments for 2001–2014.Table 10:Maturity of lithography options.Table 11:Summary of application areas for informatics.Table 12:Summary of application areas for nanoscale pharmaceuticals and medicine.Table 13:Summary of applications for energy processing.Table 14:US historical funding for technology transitioning into the marketplace.List of Ta b l e s3Future Technologies, Today's ChoicesAAAI American Associationof Artificial IntelligenceAI artificial intelligenceANN artificial neural networkASIMO Advanced Step inInnovative MobilityCBEN Centre for Biological andEnvironmental NanotechnologyCMOS complementary metal oxidesemiconductorCNID Centre for NanoscienceInnovation for DefenceDARPA Defence AdvancedResearch Project AgencyDoD Department of DefenceDRAM dynamic random access memoryDTI Department of Trade and IndustryDDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneEC European CommissionEU European UnionEELD Evidence Extraction andLink DiscoveryEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEPSRC Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research CouncilFP Framework ProgrammeGM genetically modifiedISS Intelligent Simulation SystemIT information technologyMEMS micro-electrical-mechanical systemsMETI Ministry of Economy,Trade and IndustryMEXT Ministry of Education,Culture, Sports, Scienceand TechnologyMIT Massachusetts Instituteof TechnologyMNT molecular nanotechnologyNASA National Aeronautics andSpace AdministrationNBIC nanoscience, biotechnology,information technology andcognitive scienceNII National Institute of InformaticsNNI National Nanotechnology InitiativeNSF National Science FoundationPC personal computersPV photovoltaicQIP quantum information processingRAM random access memoryRWCP Real World Computing ProjectSCI Scientific Citation IndexTIA Total Information AwarenessUCAV Unmanned Combat Air VehicleA b b r e v i a t i o n sand Acronyms4Why is Greenpeace interested in newtechnologies? New technologies featureprominently in our ongoing campaignsagainst genetic modified (GM) crops andnuclear power; however, they are also anintegral part of our solutions toenvironmental problems, including renewableenergy technologies, such as solar, wind andwave power, and waste treatmenttechnologies, such as mechanical–biologicaltreatment. So while Greenpeace accepts andrelies upon the merits of many newtechnologies, we campaign against othertechnologies that have a potentially profoundnegative impact on the environment.Greenpeace is in the business of evaluatingboth future and current threats. Our missionmust be to survey upcoming innovations forseveral reasons. First, we are conscious ofunintended (but foreseeable) consequencesthat impact on the environment. No oneintended, for example, that pesticide use inthe 1970s and 1980s would have the impacton wildlife that it did. Becoming aware of,and ultimately preventing, the environmentaldownside of technological developments isclearly a core interest – indeed, the‘precautionary principle’ has become animportant part of international law, such asthe Biosafety Protocol on GM organisms.There is also increasing interest in the widerconcept of precaution, which is nowrecognised to include the need for widerparticipation in the control and direction oftechnological innovation. This kind ofprocess produces not only a better evidencebase, but also more informed decisions.Unintended consequences of a particular newtechnology cannot always be foreseen;however, if these consequences become acollective problem, it is unreasonable toexpect collective responsibility if the decisionto proceed with the technology was made byan elite few.Second, and more subtly, the interests of thosewho own and control the new technologiesl a rgely determine how a new technology isused. Any technology placed in the hands ofthose who care little about the possiblee n v i ronmental, health, or social impacts ispotentially disastrous. When entire nationaleconomies are adapted to take advantage ofthe economic opportunities off e red by newtechnologies, it is a matter of huge publici m p o rtance, and the potential enviro n m e n t a land social consequences are clearly ofi m p o rtance to Greenpeace. Globaltechnologies can, particularly in the long term ,be of greater significance than Prime Ministersor presidents. Will the power aff o rded topeople and organisations in control of thesenew technologies be properly controlled? If asingle person – a computer- v i rus writer or abiochemist dealing with anthrax – can causehuge political and financial problems, howmuch more damage could those with morere s o u rces do? Thorough public scrutiny beforefinancial or political commitments to newtechnologies become irreversible could behugely beneficial, and surely a matter ofdemocratic rights.In April and May 2002, Greenpeace andNew Scientist magazine co-sponsored a seriesof four debates on the impacts of newtechnologies, entitled Science, Technologyand the Future. These debates generatedmuch interest, but the difficulties in locatingspeakers highlighted the fact that few peoplecould give an overview of eitherdevelopments in these technologies or theirimpact in the physical, political andcommercial domains. Even more problematicwas identifying what the initial technologicalproducts would be and their social orenvironmental consequences.This prompted Greenpeace to commission acomprehensive review of nanotechnology andartificial intelligence/robotics developmentsfrom an organisation with a reputation fortechnological expertise – Imperial CollegeLondon. We asked them to documentexisting applications and to analyse currentF o r e w o r dDr Doug Parr,Greenpeace Chief Scientist5Future Technologies, Today's Choicesresearch and development (R&D), the mainplayers behind these developments, and theassociated incentives and risks.New Technologies in ContextBeyond the contents of this report, thepolitical and social processes surrounding theintroduction of technologies are veryimportant. For example, compare the publicresponse to GM crops in Europe to the wideacceptance of mobile phones. The ‘socialconstitution’ of the technology appears keyto its acceptability. This social constitutionprovides the answers to questions such as:• Who is in control?• Where can I get information that I trust?• On what terms is the technology beingintroduced?• What risks apply, with what certainty, andto whom?• Where do the benefits fall?• Do the risks and benefits fall to the samepeople (e.g. mobile phones are popular,while mobile phone masts are not)?• Who takes responsibility for resultingproblems?The evidence presented in this report suggeststhat, depending on the development pathway,some aspects of nanotechnology might get arocky ride, as its social constitution is morelike that of GM crops than mobile phones. Inparticular, future disputes surrounding newtechnology seem certain in the light ofglobalised, rapid technology transfer. Thegeneral public is also increasingly unwillingto accept the word of a company orGovernment (on the basis of brutalexperience), on the risks and benefits oftechnology, particularly as science andcommerce become more closely linked.At the time of commissioning this report,civil society critiques of the immense R&Dand commercial efforts taking place innanotechnology were quite sparse, butalready there are signs that this is changing.In the wake of the furore over geneticmodification, the idea of a ‘public debate’about new technologies is in vogue, but thishas to be meaningful or it will simplypromote cynicism.If public dialogue on science is to meananything, the approach of nanotechnology isa huge opportunity. Instead of waiting forpotential adverse reactions, the scientificcommunity could be proactive. Why not holda citizens jury to determine scientificpriorities on nanotechology? From each ofthe agricultural, defence, energy,pharmaceutical, and information technology(IT) sectors (and the numerous cross-overs),the jury could examine current research andits potential. It could suggest which areasneed to be highest priority. It would look atthe potential short- and long-termapplications and the ‘blue skies’ elementnecessary for any research programme.Research councils such as the Biotechnologyand Biological Sciences Research Council(BBSRC) and the Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC) in theUK could commit to considering results andutilizing the insights from the findings ofsuch a jury. If dialogue between science andsociety is to be more than just a sophisticatedmeans of engineering user-acceptance,research councils must adopt this kind ofparticipatory initiative to allow ordinarypeople to have a say in the types andtrajectories of technological innovation.N a n o t e c h n o l o g yThe most common definition ofnanotechnology is that of manipulation,observation and measurement at a scale ofless than 100 nanometres (one nanometre isone millionth of a millimetre). However, theemergence of a multi-disciplinary field called6‘nanotechnology’ arises from newinstrumentation only recently available, anda flow of public money into a great numberof techniques and relevant academicdisciplines in what has been described as an‘arms race’ between governments.Nanotechnology is really a convenient labelfor a variety of scientific disciplines whichserves as a way of getting money fromGovernment budgets. The figures involvedare becoming very large; indeed this reportindicates that over US$2 billion was spent bynational governments in 2002, and that thesefigures will be even larger in 2003. Althoughthe US is said to be the leader, the Japanesegovernment is expected to spend more thanthe US in 2003. It is also thought that 2002will prove to be the year when corporatefunding matched or exceeded state funds.This is because transnational companiesrealise that nanotechnology is likely todisrupt their current products and processes,and because the investment community hasdecided that nanotechnology is the ‘next bigthing’. Three new business alliances haverecently been formed in the US, Europe andAsia, whose sole purpose is to translateresearch into economically viable products.The UK Government’s Department of Tradeand Industry estimates that the market fornanotechnology applications will reach overUS$100 billion by 2005. There is now agreat deal of momentum behindnanotechnology that has built up into a forcewhich might already struggle to incorporatethe outcomes of organised public debate, ormeet well-founded public concerns, althoughby no means will all of the developments becontroversial – many will not.The difficulty in making predictions aboutthe future is that R&D could still takeseveral different directions, and the materialsand processes being developed aretechnology-pushed rather than market-led.After the hype about possible applications,the first real nanotechnology products arestarting to appear in the semiconductorindustry – to increase storage densities onmicrochips – and in the pharmaceuticalindustry to improve drug targeting anddiagnostic aids. Both sectors expect that inthe future nanotechnology will provide adramatic leap forward, but that for now theproducts seem relatively modest compared tothe preceding hype. Other areas of futureapplications appear to be within the energysector and defence. With regard to theformer, more effective solar cells and highlyefficient lighting hold promise on a ten-yeartime-scale. In the latter, there is no shortageof ideas for military applications and at leasttwo new institutions in the US have beencreated expressly for the purpose ofexploiting nanotechnology for military gain.Notice that none of these applications dealwith the far more distant but highly-publicised prospect of replicator robots orthe so-called ‘general assembler’ – a nano-machine which would produce anythingdesired given the right raw-materials, andwhich formed some of the ideas behindMichael Crichton's novel, Prey.Theseapplications are currently a long way off dueto the difficulties involved in engineeringchemical building blocks, informationmanagement, and systems design. Thechallenges are formidable but even so, twoUS companies are known to be researchingmolecular assembly. The ‘runaway replicator’concerns (also known as the ‘grey goo’scenario) raised by Crichton’s novel arehideous, but the prospects of it remain wayoff, and some experts suggest that it wouldbe very difficult to achieve this deliberately,let alone by accident (but see below).All of this suggests that the development ofnanotechnology will go through variousdifferent stages, and thus societal debate willneed to be an ongoing process rather than asingle outcome. There will need to becontinual incorporation of the insights fromsuch a debate into policy and productdevelopment as the prospects become more7Future Technologies, Today's Choicestangible. Already some concerns arebecoming evident. Some new materials mayconstitute new classes of non-biodegradablepollutant about which we have littleunderstanding. Additionally, little work hasbeen done to ascertain the possible effects ofnanomaterials on living systems, or thepossibility that nanoparticles could slip pastthe human immune system. Carbonnanotubes are already found in cars andsome tennis rackets, but there is virtually noenvironmental or toxicological data on them.Despite this, of the US$710 million beingspent by the US Government onnanotechnology, only US$500,000 is beingspent on environmental impact assessment,even though a major feature of the productpipeline is that it consists of new materials.Current proposals at EU level on syntheticchemicals regulation are belatedly ensuringthat a rule of ‘no data, no market’ will applyto the basic information about hazardousproperties of such chemicals. Knowing thebasics about the dangers of new materials isa pre-requisite for effective environmentalresponsibility. From the Greenpeaceperspective, this suggests that whilst ‘societaldebate’ is highly desirable, it is a bit of aluxury if the same old mistakes are beingrepeated by a new generation oftechnologists. There is no need for grand,new mechanisms of public involvement topoint out the blindingly obvious. With causefor concern, and with the precautionaryprinciple applied, these materials should beconsidered hazardous until shown otherwise.Still other concerns are evident in the socialarena that revolve around the uses to whichthe new technology is put – closely linkedwith ownership and control. One possibledystopian future would be the shift of thecontrol of nanotechnology towards beingdriven by military needs. This report doesnot generally support such a prospect atpresent, although military interest innanotechnology is considerable.Alternatively, corporate control has beenflagged up by the ETC group, and thisimplies the pursuit of income streams fromthose already possessing disposable income.Is the future of nanotechnology then, aplaything of the already-rich? Will the muchtalked about ‘digital-divide’ be built upon,exacerbating the inequities present in currentsociety through a ‘nano-divide’?Nanotechnology can only be made availableto the poor and to developing countries if thetechnology remains open to use. Already acompany in Toronto has applied for patentson the carbon moleculeBuckminsterfullerene. If ownership ofmolecules is allowed, the nanotechnologytechniques for the precise manipulation ofatoms open up a whole new terrain forprivate ownership. As with geneticengineering where genes have becomecontrolled by patents, things that were onceconsidered universally owned could becomecontrolled by a few.A rtificial Intelligence and RoboticsUnlike the situation for nanotechnology,researchers in artificial intelligence (AI) feelthat their work has suffered because of‘public discussion’ – hype might be a betterterm – in the 1960s and 1980s whichadversely affected advances in the field afterthe delivery did not live up to expectationsand funding dropped. Many researchers nowfeel that the goal of mimicking the humanability to solve problems and achieve goals inthe real world (the so-called ‘strong AI’) isneither likely nor desirable because a longseries of conceptual breakthroughs isrequired. Instead the focus is on ‘weak AI’ –applications that model some, but not all,aspects of human behaviour.The number of applications for weak AI isgrowing. AI-related patents in the USincreased from 100–1700 between 1989 and1999, with a total of 3900 patentsmentioning related terms. AI systems aregenerally embedded within larger systems –applications can be found in video games,8speech recognition, and in the ‘data mining’business sector. Full speech recognition,leading to voice-led Internet access orrecognition in security applications, isanticipated relatively soon. However, theability to extract meaning from naturallanguage recognition remains way off. Thedata mining market uses software to extractgeneral regularities from online data, dealingin particular with large volumes or patternshumans may not look for. Such systemscould be used to predict consumerpreferences or extract trends from marketdata such as patents and news articles. Salesalready have reached US$3.5 billion and areanticipated to be US$8.8 billion in 2004.Weak AI is already behind systems thatdetect ‘deviant’ behaviour in credit card use,which has lead to improved credit card frauddetection. Potential applications of thesetechniques to state-security situations arelikely to be controversial (see below).The field of robotics is closely linked to thatof AI, although definitional issues abound.‘Giving AI motor capability’ seems areasonable definition, but most people wouldnot regard a cruise missile as a robot eventhough the navigation and control techniquesdraw heavily on robotics research. After thehype from the 1960s rebounded oninvestment (as for AI), experts moved awayfrom the idea of complete automation as itwas neither desirable nor feasible. Instead,more practical applications have been found,such as in cervical smear screening and,predictably, in the military sphere, whereUnmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) arebeing developed, with the hope of fieldingthem by 2008.Despite these developments, current AIsystems are, it is argued, fundamentallyincapable of exhibiting intelligence as weunderstand it. Current AI is only as smart asthe programmer who wrote the code. AIs o f t w a re designers point out that existingcomputer arc h i t e c t u re means that most AIapplications necessarily arise through classicaldesign and programming techniques, ratherthan new approaches that aim to allowp rogrammes to train and evolve. An exampleof such an alternative approach may bepossible through artificial neural networks,although these systems are so complex that itis not generally possible to follow thereasoning processes that they exhibit.The funding of AI research is far moredifficult to uncover than for nanotechnologyas no existing overview seems to exist on thetopic, and information on spending is usuallyplaced under a general computer sciencebudget. Industry reportedly leads, with two-thirds of spending on research in computerscience, even though public spending hasproved an important source of funding in thepast, largely because of the field’s high-riskconceptual challenges. Nevertheless it is clearthat the US is the leader in spending. It leads,in part, due to military-related institutions,such as the Defence Advanced ResearchProject Agency (DARPA) and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) who used AI systems and roboticsfor the exploration of Mars. Japan andEurope are also investing (and indeedcollaborating) in this field, but are playingcatch-up with the US, although Japanremains the leader in using industrial robots.Far more likely than the tyrannical take-overof society by hyper-intelligent robots (afrequent science fiction theme) or concernsabout ‘rights’ for intelligent machines, amore likely issue will be the use of AIsystems to spy on people. The USDepartment of Defense has established agroup to look at information gathering andanalysis on a huge scale, includinggovernment and commercial sources, whichwould use AI systems to scrutinise the dataand extract information about people,relationships, organisations, and activities forcounter-terrorism purposes. The concernsabout infringing personal privacy or possible9Future Technologies, Today's Choicesmisuse of the data are clear. Furthermore, theuse of computer systems for the US NationalMissile Defence, and possibly for UCAVs,has created a different moral dilemma in that“they will be the first machines given theresponsibility for killing human beingswithout human direction or supervision”.AI and robotics are likely to continue to cre e pinto our lives without us really noticing.U n f o rt u n a t e l y, many of the applicationsappear to be taking place amongst agencies,p a rticularly the military, that do not re a d i l yrespond to public concern, however wella rticulated or thought through.The FutureNanotechnology and AI/robotics, togetherwith biotechnology, may well be on aconvergent path. In 2001 the NationalScience Foundation held a large workshop tolook at the implications of this convergenceand the implications for human abilities andproductivity. AI could be boosted bynanotechnology innovations in computingpower. Applications of a futurenanotechnology general assembler wouldrequire some AI and robotics innovations.Equally, nanotechnology may converge muchsooner with biotechnology as it uses the toolsand structures of biological systems togenerate tiny machines. Although theprospect of general assemblers may be quitedistant, self-replicating ‘machines’ that usethe tools of biology – and look more likeliving things than machines – might be closerat hand through the convergence of bio- andnanotechnologies. ‘Grey goo’ might not be arealistic prospect; ‘green goo’ may be closerto the mark – quite how close is difficult tojudge on the basis of the evidence in thisreport. Any creation that posed the prospectof being self-replicating would need to behandled with immense care to ensureenvironmental protection.Whether any of the technological futuresbeing scoped out in laboratories are whatour general public would like is a questionthat can only be answered by asking them. Ifthose concerned with the development ofnew technologies, and nanotechnology inparticular, are convinced that the benefitsthey hope to generate will withstand scrutinythey should have no concerns about engagingand winning public support.Many thanks to my supervisors, TimothyFoxon and Robert Gross, Imperial CollegeLondon, for their guidance and advice incompleting this report; to Douglas Parr,Greenpeace, for commissioning the work;and to Ken Green, University of ManchesterInstitute of Science and Technology, for hisreview and commentary.In addition, I would to thank Gareth Parry,Jenny Nelson, and Murray Shanahan ofImperial College London; Abid Khan of theLondon Centre for Nanotechnology; andOlivier Bosch of the International Institutefor Strategic Studies (IISS) for allowing me tointerview them.Finally, I am grateful to Jon Glick of theAmerican Association for ArtificialIntelligence (AAAI); Andre Gsponer of theIndependent Scientific Research Institute(ISRI); Hope Shand of the ETC Group; andLoretta Anania, Ramon Compano, andJakub Wejcher of the European Community’sFuture and Emerging Technologiesprogramme (EC FET) for their assistance.A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s101.1 About nanotechnology,artificial intelligence and roboticsThe aim of this report is to provide basic,background information of global scope onthree emerging technologies: nanotechnology,artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.According to the Department of Trade andIndustry (DTI), it is important to considerthese emerging technologies now becausetheir emergence on the market is anticipatedto ‘affect almost every aspect of our lives’during the coming decades (DTI, 2002).Thus, a first major feature of these threedisciplines is product diversity.In addition, itis possible to characterise them as disruptive,enabling and interdisciplinary.D i s ruptive technologies are those that displaceolder technologies and enable radically newgenerations of existing products and pro c e s s e sto take over. They can also enable whole newclasses of products not previously feasible.The implications for industry are considerable:companies that do not adapt rapidly faceobsolescence and decline, whereas those thatdo sit up and take notice will be able to donew things in almost every conceivabletechnological discipline (DTI, 2002).Nanotechnology is also an enablingtechnology and, like electricity, the intern a lcombustion engine, or the Internet, its impacton society will be broad and oftenunanticipated. Unlike these examples,h o w e v e r, nanotechnology is generallyc o n s i d e red harder to ‘pin down’ – it is ageneral capability that impacts on manyscientific disciplines (Holister, 2002). Inaddition, the interd i s c i p l i n a ry features of thesenew technologies result in another drivingfactor for innovation and discovery: they canbring together people from traditionallyseparate academic groups. For example, theboundaries between physical sciences and lifesciences are blurring within these fields.1.2 Report structureThis report is divided in two main parts: thefirst examines the field of nanotechnology,and the second looks at AI and robotics.Furthermore, both parts are divided into sixequivalent sections. The Section 1 of eachpresents an introduction. Following this, thecurrent status of research and development(R&D) is described for both fields in Section2, with particular attention being paid to theareas of research attracting the mostattention. Much of the work described herecuts across traditional academic boundariesand contains a significant technical element.This is because a firm understanding of thenature of the technology itself is essential inunderstanding its future impact (Holister,2002). In addition, the perspective taken hereis global in scope since governments andcorporations world-wide are investing inthese areas and research is active on severalcontinents. This suggests that, withinternational flows of information,technological innovation will betransboundary in nature.The applications and markets of theseemerging technologies are described inSection 3. Specifically, this report aims tohighlight the kinds of products which havealready been introduced into the globalmarket and those applications due forintroduction in the short- and medium-term.In addition, the range of market values thatare currently being anticipated are pointedout, although these figures are necessarilyhighly speculative. Underpinning these R&Dand application developments is a wide arrayof key players. While interest in thesetechnologies is increasing rapidly, particularlyin nanotechnology, most of the recent growthof interest comes from those with a strategicinterest, such as governments, venturecapitalists, large technology-orientatedcorporations and scientists working in thefield (Holister, 2002).1. Introduction11Future Technologies, Today's ChoicesOne problem with many of the hundreds ofdocuments written about emergingtechnologies every year is that they do notdistinguish between science and sciencefiction, let alone the desirable andundesirable in terms of ethics, choice andsafety (Ho, 2002b). Thus, Sections 4 and 5aim to deal with some of these issues: Section4 separates out some of the hype from themore visionary but solidly placedapplications, whereas Section 5 provides anaccount of the potential environmental andsocial risks that such uses could pose in thefuture. Finally, Section 6 highlights some ofthe key messages of each part.1.3 Key referencesThis report has been compiled by consultinga wide variety of sources across the entirespectrum of the debate, from industryadvocates to environmental and socialpressure groups. In doing so, a number ofsources have been particularly important. Forthe section on nanotechnology, the DTI’s(2002) New Dimensions for Manufacturing:UK Strategy for Nanotechnology provides auseful introduction to the field. In addition,Ramon Compano (2001) of the EuropeanCommission; Professors J.N. Hay and S.J.Shaw (2000) of the University of Surrey andDefence Evaluation and Research Agency(DERA); Paul Holister (2002) of CMPCientifica; Ian Miles and Duncan Jarvis(2001) of the National Physical Laboratory(NPL); and Ottilia Saxl (2000) of theInstitute of Nanotechnology have been usedextensively for construction of summarytables. Finally, the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) report, SocietalImplications of Nanoscience andNanotechnology,supplies good informationon a wide range of issues (Roco andBainbridge, 2001). For the section on AI andRobotics, Barbara Grosz and Randall Davis– President and President-Elect of theAmerican Association for ArtificialIntelligence (AAAI) – and Daniel Weld of theUniversity of Washington provide someuseful technical information.122.1 Introduction2 . 1 . 1 About nanotechnologyA major difficulty of characterisingnanotechnology is that the field does notstem from one established academicdiscipline (The Economist, 2002). In fact,there are a number of ways in whichnanotechnology may be defined. The mostcommon version regards nanoscience as ‘theability to do things – measure, see, predictand make – on the scale of atoms andmolecules and exploit the novel propertiesfound at that scale’ (DTI, 2002).Traditionally, this scale is defined as beingbetween 0.1 and 100 nanometres (nm), 1 nmbeing one-thousandth of a micron(micrometre; mm), which is, in turn, one-thousandth of a millimetre (mm). However,as will become clear in the later stages of thisstudy, this definition is open tointerpretation, and may readily be applied toa number of different technologies that haveno obvious common relationship (TheEconomist, 2002).Another way to characterise nanotechnologyis by distinguishing between the fabricationp rocesses of top-down and bottom-up. To p -down technology refers to the ‘fabrication ofnanoscale stru c t u res by machining andetching techniques’ (Saxl, 2000). However,top-down means more than justminiaturisation: at the nanoscale leveld i ff e rent laws of physics come into play,p ro p e rties of traditional materials change,and the behaviours of surfaces start todominate the behaviour of bulk materials.On the other hand, bottom-up technology –often re f e rred to as molecularnanotechnology (MNT) – applies to thec reation of organic and inorganic stru c t u re s ,atom by atom, or molecule by molecule(Saxl, 2000). It is this area of nanotechnologythat has created the most excitement andp u b l i c i t y. In a mature nanotech world,m a c ro s t ru c t u res would simply be grown fro mtheir smallest constituent components: an‘anything box’ would take a molecular seedcontaining instructions for building a pro d u c tand use tiny nanobots or molecular machinesto build it atom by atom (Miller, 2002).Indeed, as Forrest (1989) points out,‘ t h edevelopment of [bottom-up] technology doesnot depend upon on discovering newscientific principles. The advances re q u i re da re engineering.’ In short, fully-fledgedbottom-up nanotechnology promises nothingless than complete control over the physicals t ru c t u re of matter – the same kind of contro lover the molecular and structural makeup ofphysical objects that a word pro c e s s o rp rovides over the form and content of text(Reynolds, 2002).2 . 1 . 2 Where are we now?At present it is clear that this bottom-up‘dream’ is far from being realised. As Saxl(2000) notes: ‘Top-down and bottom-up canbe a measure of the level of advancement ofnanotechnology, and nanotechnology, asapplied today, is still mainly in the top-downstage.’ This state of relative infancy is oftencompared in the literature to the informationtechnology (IT) sector in the 1960s, orbiotechnology in the 1980s. So, with thescience fiction aspects of the debate rapidlyreceding, industry has now necessarilyadopted much more realistic expectations(pers. comm., Abid Khan, London Centre forNanotechnology, 6 Nov 2002.)This is not to say, however, that we havelong to wait before nanotechnology makes itsmark in the global market. In fact, currentindustry jargon would probably describenanotechnology as ‘coming on stream’. For,although the underlying technologies andtheir applications are still at an early stage ofdevelopment, there are applications emerginginto the market that are likely to be makinga significant impact on the industrial sceneby 2006 (Miles and Jarvis, 2001). The bestevidence of this move into commercialisationconcerns the recent emergence of threealliances whose sole purpose is to translate2. Nanotechnology13Future Technologies, Today's Choicesthis underlying research into economicallyviable products: the US NanoBusinessAlliance, the Europe NanobusinessAssociation, and the Asia-PacificNanotechnology Forum. In addition to this,laboratories around the world are workingon new approaches and on new ways to scaleup nanotechnology to industrial levels. Forexample, the first factories to manufacturecarbon nanotubes and fullerenes are underconstruction in Japan (DTI, 2002).In spite of these developments, there hasbeen criticism recently over the amountof hype and, consequently, funding thatresearch into nanoscience andnanotechnology has received. For example,the much-heralded US NationalNanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has beencriticised for using ‘nano’ as a convenient tagto attract funding for a whole range of newscience and technologies (e.g. see Roy, 2002).This reinvention is one way of attractingmore money because politicians like to feelthey are putting money into something newand exciting (pers. comm., Gareth Parry,Imperial College London, 22 Nov 2002).For these reasons, the nanotechnology sectoris far broader than you would usually expectto see and the resulting lack of a cleardefinition is hampering meaningfuldiscussion of its potential costs or benefits.Thus, if we use the standard definition givenabove, we can say that nanoscience andtechnology have been around for severaldecades, particularly in research,development, and manufacturing in IT.Rather, it is the wide availability of tools andinformation to diverse scientific communitiesthat has generated the current interest in thisarea (Chaudhari, 2001).2.2 Research and Development2 . 2 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o nThe absence of a universally accepted strictdefinition of nanotechnology has allowed theresearch emphasis to broaden, encompassingmany areas of work that have traditionallybeen referred to as chemistry or biology(DTI, 2002). Thus, the first majorcharacteristic of activity grouped under thissection is that contemporary R&D cutsacross a wide range of industrial sectors.In some cases, major markets are fairly welldefined. The food industry serves as a goodexample here, where there are significantdrivers at work (pers. comm., Abid Khan,London Centre for Nanotechnology, 6 Nov2002). To illustrate, ‘smart’ wrappings forthe food industry (that indicate freshness orotherwise) are close to the market (Saxl,2000). By 2006, beer packaging isanticipated by industry to use the highestweight of nano-strengthened material, at3 million lbs., followed by meats andcarbonated soft drinks. By 2011, meanwhile,the total figure might reach almost 100million lbs. (nanotechweb.org, 2002). Inother cases, important applications areidentified but the eventual market impactsare more difficult to predict. For example,nanotechnology is anticipated to yieldsignificant advances in catalyst technology.If these potential applications are realisedthen the impact on society will be dramaticas catalysts, arguably the most importanttechnology in our modern society, enable theproduction of a wide range of materials andfuels (Saxl, 2000).A second characteristic of current work inthis area is that the kinds of materials andprocesses being developed are necessarily‘technology pushed’: urged on by thepotential impacts of nanotechnology, theR&D community is achieving rapid advancesin basic science and technology. This level ofscientific interest is gauged by Compano andHullman (2001) who examine the world-14wide number of publications innanotechnology in the Science Citation Index(SCI) database. They conclude that for theperiod between 1989 and 1998 the averageannual growth rate in the number ofpublications is an ‘impressive’ 27%. This risein interest is not confined to a small numberof central repositories however (Smith,1996). Instead, research is spread acrossmore than 30 countries that have developednanotechnology activities and plans (Holister,2002). In this way, Compano and Hullman(2001) also examine the distribution of thisinterest. Based upon their findings, the mostactive is the US, with roughly one-quarter ofall publications, followed by Japan, China,France, the UK and Russia. These countriesalone account for 70% of the world’sscientific papers on nanotechnology. Inparticular, for China and Russia the sharesare outstanding in comparison with theirgeneral presence in the SCI database andshow the significance of nanoscience in theirresearch systems.2.2.2 Novel materialsThe third major characteristic of activitygrouped under this section concerns that factthat nanotechnology is primarily aboutmaking things (Holister, 2002). For thisreason, most of the existing focus of R&Dcentres on ‘nanomaterials’: novel materialswhose molecular structure has beenengineered at the nanometre scale (DTI,2002). Indeed, Saxl (2000) states that:‘material science and technology isfundamental to a majority of the applicationsof nanotechnology.’ Thus, many of thematerials that follow (Table 1) involve eitherbulk production of conventional compoundsthat are much smaller (and hence exhibitdifferent properties) or new nanomaterials,such as fullerenes and nanotubes (ETCGroup, 2002a). The markets range ofnanomaterials are considerable. Indeed,it has been estimated that, aided bynanotechnology, novel materials andprocesses can be expected to have a marketimpact of over US$340 billion within adecade (Holister, 2002).2.2.3 NanotubesNanotubes provide a good example of howbasic R&D can take off into full-scalemarket application in one specific area.Described as ‘the most important material innanotechnology today’ (Holister, 2002),nanotubes are a new material withremarkable tensile strength. Indeed, takingcurrent technical barriers into account,nanotube-based material is anticipated tobecome 50–100 times stronger than steel atone-sixth of the weight (Anton et al., 2001).This development would dwarf theimprovements that carbon fibres brought tocomposites. Harry Kroto, who was awardedthe Nobel Prize for the discovery of C60Buckminsterfullerene, states that suchadvances will take ‘a long, long time’ toachieve (2010 Nanospace Odyssey lecture,Queen Mary University, 6 Jan 2003), the firstapplications of nanotubes being in compositedevelopment. However, if such technologiesdo eventually arrive, the results will beawesome: they will ‘be equivalent to JamesWatt’s invention of the condenser’, adevelopment that kick-started the industrialrevolution. The concept of the space elevatorserves as a good illustration of the kind ofvisionary thinking that recent nanotubedevelopment has inspired. The idea of a ‘liftto the stars’ is not itself particularly new: aRussian engineer, Yuri Artutanov, penned theidea of an elevator – perhaps powered by alaser that could quietly transport payloadsand people to a space platform – as early as1960 (cited in Cowen 2002). However, suchideas have always been hampered by the lackof material strength necessary to make thecable attachment. The nanotube may be thekey to overcoming this longstandingobstacle, making the space elevator a realityin just 15 years time (Cowen, 2002). Thisdevelopment, though, will rely on thesuccessful incorporation of nanotubes intofibres or ribbons and successfully avoidingTable 1: Summary of the major nanomaterials currently in research and development and their potential applications.M a t e r i a l P r o p e rt i e s A p p l i c a t i o n s Time-scale (tomarket launch)Clusters of atomsQuantum wells Ultra-thin layers – usually a few nanometres thick – CD players have made use of quantum Current – 5 yearsof semiconductor material (the well) grown between well lasers for several years. Morebarrier material by modern crystal growth technologies recent developments promise to make(Saxl, 2000). The barrier materials trap electrons in the these nanodevices commonplace inultra-thin layers, thus producing a number of useful low-cost telecommunications and optics.properties. These properties have led, for example, tothe development of highly efficient laser devices.Quantum dots Fluorescent nanoparticles that are invisible until ‘lit up’ Telecommunications, optics.7–8 yearsby ultraviolet light. They can be made to exhibit a rangeof colours, depending on their composition(Miles and Jarvis, 2001).P o l y m e r s Organic-based materials that emit light when an electric Computing, energy conversion.?current is applied to them and vice versa(pers. comm., Jenny Nelson, Imperial College London,2 Dec 2002).Grains that are less than 100nm in sizeN a n o c a p s u l e s Buckminsterfullerenes are the most well known Many applications envisaged Current – 2 yearsexample. Discovered in 1985, these C60 particles are e.g. nanoparticulate dry lubricant1nm in width. for engineering (Saxl, 2000).Catalytic nanoparticles In the range of 1–10 nm, such materials were Wide range of applications, including Current – ?in existence long before it was realised that they materials, fuel and food production,belonged to the realms of nanotechnology.health and agriculture (Hay andH o w e v e r, recent developments are enabling a given S h a w, 2000).mass of catalyst to present more surface area forreaction, hence improving its performance (Hay andS h a w, 2000). Following this, such catalytic nanoparticlescan often be regenerated for further use.Fibres that are less than 100nm in diameterCarbon nanotubes Two types of nanotube exist: the single-wall carbon Many applications are envisaged: space Current – 5 yearsnanotubes, the so-called ‘Buckytubes’, and multilayer and aircraft manufacture, automobilescarbon nanotubes (Hay and Shaw, 2000). Both consist and construction. Multi-layeredof graphitic carbon and typically have an internal carbon nanotubes are already availablediameter of 5 nm and an external diameter of 10 nm.in practical commercial quantities.Described as the ‘most important material in Buckytubes some way off large-scalenanotechnology today’ (Holister, 2002), it has been commercial production (Saxl, 2000).calculated that nanotube-based material has the potentialto become 50–100 times stronger than steel at one sixthof the weight.Films that are less than 100nm in thicknessS e l f - a s s e m b l i n g Organic or inorganic substances spontaneously form A wide range of applications, based 2–5 yearsmonolayers (SAMs) a layer one molecule thick on a surface. Additional on properties ranging from beinglayers can be added, leading to laminates where each chemically active to being wearlayer is just one molecule in depth (Holister, 2002). resistant (Saxl, 2000).N a n o p a r t i c u l a t e Coating technology is now being strongly influenced Sensors, reaction beds, liquid crystal 5–15 yearsc o a t i n g s by nanotechnology. E.g. metallic stainless steel manufacturing, molecular wires,coatings sprayed using nanocrystalline powders lubrication and protective layers, anti-have been shown to possess increased hardness corrosion coatings, tougher and harderwhen compared with conventional coatings (Saxl, 2000). cutting tools (Holister, 2002).Nanostructured materialsN a n o c o m p o s i t e s Composites are combinations of metals, ceramics, A number of applications, particularly Current – 2 yearspolymers and biological materials that allow multi- where purity and electrical conductivityfunctional behaviour (Anton et al., 2001). When characteristics are important, such asmaterials are introduced that exist at the nanolevel,in microelectronics. Commercialnanocomposites are formed (Hay and Shaw, 2000),exploitation of these materials isand the material’s properties – e.g. hardness, currently small, the most ubiquitoust r a n s p a r e n c y, porosity – are altered.of these being carbon black, which findswidespread industrial application,particularly in vehicle tyres(Hay and Shaw, 2000).Te x t i l e s Incorporation of nanoparticles and capsules into M i l i t a r y, lifestyle.3-5 yearsclothing leading to increased lightness and durability,and ‘smart’ fabrics (that change their physicalproperties according to the wearer’s clothing)( H o l s t e r, 2002).16various atmospheric dangers, such aslightning strikes, micrometeors, and human-made space debris.The market impetus behind suchdevelopments, then, is clear: the conventionalspace industry is anticipated as the firstmajor customer, followed by aircraftmanufacturers. However, as production costsdrop (currently US$20–1200/g), nanotubesare expected to find widespread applicationin such large industries as automobiles andconstruction. In fact, it is possible toconceive of a market in any area of industrythat will benefit from lighter and strongermaterials (Holister, 2002). It is expectationssuch as these that are currently fuelling therace to develop techniques of nanotube mass-production in economic quantities. The ETCGroup (2002b) states that there are currentlyat least 55 companies involved in nanotubefabrication and that production levels willsoon be reaching 1 kg/day in somecompanies. For example, Japan’s Mitsui andCo. will start building a facility in April 2003with an annual production capacity of120 tons of carbon nanotubes (Fried, 2002).The company plans to market the product toautomakers, resin makers and batterymakers. In fact, the industry has grown soquickly that Holister (2002) believes that thenumber of nanotube suppliers already inexistence are not likely to be supported byavailable applications in the years to come.Fried (2002) also supports this contention,stating that the ‘carbon nanotube field isalready over-saturated’.2 . 2 . 4 Tools and fabricationIt is a simple statement of fact that in order tomake things you must first have thefabrication tools available. There f o re, many ofthe nanomaterials covered above are co-evolving with a number of enablingtechnologies and techniques. These toolsp rovide the instrumentation needed toexamine and characterize devices and eff e c t sduring the R&D phase, the manufacturingtechniques that will allow the larg e - s c a l eeconomic production of nanotechnologyp roducts, and the necessary support forquality control (DTI, 2002). Because of theessential nature of this category, its influence isfar greater than is reflected in the size of theeconomic sectors producing these pro d u c t s .For this reason, the tools and techniqueshighlighted below have a strong commerc i a lf u t u re and the greatest number of establishedcompanies (pers. comm., Gareth Parry,Imperial College London, 22 Nov 2002). Thefollowing sections cover methods for top-down and bottom-up manufacture, softwaremodelling and nanometro l o g y. However, inthe near future, this area will mainly featureextensions of conventional instru m e n t a t i o nand top-down manufacturing. More futuristicmolecular scale assembly remains distant(Miles and Jarvis, 2001).2.2.4.1 Top-down manufactureScanning Probe Microscope.This is thegeneral term for a range of instruments withspecific functions. Fundamentally, ananoscopic probe is maintained at a constantheight over the bed of atoms. This probe canbe positioned so close to individual atomsthat the electrons of the probe-tip and atombegin to interact. These interactions can bestrong enough to ‘lift’ the atom and move itto another place (pers. comm., Gareth Parry,Imperial College London, 22 Nov 2002).Optical Te ch n i q u e s .These techniques can beused to detect movement – obviouslyi m p o rtant in hi-tech precision engineering.Optical techniques are, in theory, restricted inresolution to half the wavelength of lightbeing used, which keeps them out of the lowernanoscale, but various approaches are nowo v e rcoming this limitation (Holister, 2002).Lithographics.Lithography is the means bywhich patterns are delineated on silicon chipsand micro-electrical-mechanical systems(MEMS). Most significantly, opticallithography is the dominant exposure tool in17Future Technologies, Today's Choicesuse today in the semiconductor industry’sComplementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor(CMOS) process2.2.4.2 Bottom-up manufactureThe tools here support rather more futuristicapproaches to large-scale production andnanofabrication based on bottom-upapproaches, such as nanomachine productionlines (Miles and Jarvis, 2001). This approachis equivalent to building a car engine up fromindividual components, rather than the lessintuitive method of machining a systemdown from large blocks of material. Indeed,although such techniques are still in theirinfancy, the DTI (2002) report a recentmovement away from top-down techniquestowards self-assembly within theinternational research community. Scientistsand engineers are becoming increasingly ableto understand, intervene and rearrange theatomic and molecular structure of matter,and control its form in order to achievespecific aims (Saxl, 2000).Self-assembly and self-organisation.Self-assembly refers to the tendency of somematerials to organise themselves into orderedarrays (Anton et al., 2001). This techniquepotentially offers huge economies, and isconsidered to have great potential innanoelectronics. In particular, the study ofthe self-assembly nature of molecules isproving to be the foundation of rapid growthin applications in science and technology. Forexample, Saxl (2000) reports that theStranski–Krastonov methods for growingself-assembly quantum dots has rendered thelithographic approach to semiconductorquantum dot fabrication virtually obsolete.In addition, self-assembly is leading to thefabrication of new materials and devices. Theformer area of materials consists of newtypes of nanocomposites or organic/inorganichybrid structures that are created bydepositing or attaching organic molecules toultra-small particles or ultra-thin manmadelayered structures (Hay and Shaw, 2000).Similarly, the latter area of devices rangefrom the production of new chemical and gassensors, optical sensors, solar panels andother energy conversion devices, to bio-implants and in vivo monitoring. The basisof these technologies is an organic film (theresponsive layer) which can be deposited ona hard, active electronic chip substrate. Thesolid-state chip receives signals from theorganic over-layer as it reacts to changes inits environment, and processes them. Theapplications for these new materials anddevices are summarised in Table 2.2.2.4.3 Software ModellingMolecular modelling software is anotherfabrication technique of wide-rangingapplicability as it permits the efficientanalysis of large molecular structures andsubstrates (Miles and Jarvis, 2001). Hence,it is much used by molecularTable 2: Applications for new materials and devicesresulting from self-assembly and self-organisation.N a m e Te c h n i q u e A p p l i c a t i o nNew materialsSol-gel technology Inorganic and The design of different(Miles and Jarvis, 2001) organic component types of materials;c o m b i n a t i o n .functional coatings.Intercalation of Intercalation of Toxicity testing, drugpolymers (Miles and polymers with other delivery and drugJarvis, 2001) materials (DNA, drugs). performance analysis.N a n o - e m u l s i o n s Nanoparticle size and Production of required(Saxl, 2000) composition selected. viscosity and absorptionc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .B i o m i m e t i c s Design of systems,High strength, structural(Anton et al., 2001) materials and their applications, such asfunctionality to mimic artificial bones andnature. t e e t h .New devicesField-sensing devices Combination of Biosensing and(Saxl, 2000) molecular films with optical switching.optical waveguidesand resonators.M a t e r i a l - s e n s i n g Surfaces of liquid Gas and chemicaldevices (Saxl, 2000) crystals or thin sensing.membranes and otherorganic compoundscan be used to detectmolecules via structuralor conductive changes.18nanotechnologists, where computers cansimulate the behaviour of matter at theatomic and molecular level. In addition,computer modelling is anticipated to proveessential in understanding and predicting thebehaviour of nanoscale structures becausethey operate at what is sometimes referredto as the mesoscale, an area where bothclassical and quantum physics influencebehaviour (Holister, 2002).2.2.4.4 NanometrologyFundamental to commercial nanotechnologyis repeatability, and fundamental torepeatability is measurement.Nanometrology, then, allows the perfectionof the texture at the nanometre and sub-nanometre level to be examined andcontrolled. This is essential if highlyspecialised applications of nanotechnologyare to operate correctly, for example X-rayoptical components and mirrors used in lasertechnologies (Saxl, 2000).2 . 2 . 5 Public funding forresearch and developmentThe main reason for government interestin nanotechnology is strategic: to achievean advantageous position so that whennanotech applications begin to have asignificant effect in the world economy,countries are able to exploit these newopportunities to the full. Harper (2002), whodescribes the current situation as a global‘arms race’, puts these ideas into perspective:‘You only have to look at how IT made ahuge difference to both the US economy andUS military strength to see how crucialtechnology is. Nanotechnology is an evenmore fundamental technology than IT. Notonly has it the ability to shift the balance ofmilitary power but also affect the globalbalance of power in the energy markets.’This emphasis on military power is wellfounded: Smith (1996) echoes this sentimentwhen he speculates that it is entirely possiblethat much, or even most, US governmentresearch in the field is concentrated in thehands of military planners.Levels of public investment innanotechnology are reminiscent of a growingstrategic interest: this is an area that attractsboth large and small countries. Global R&Dspending is currently around US$4 billion(ETC Group, 2002a), with public investmentincreasing rapidly (503% between 1997 and2002 across the ‘lead’ countries2). Table 3summarises these rises.2.2.5.1 The USThe US is widely considered to be the world-leader in nanoscale science research (Saxl,2000). Certainly, in terms of leading centresfor nanotechnology research, the USAdominates, with eight institutions making theDTI (2002) top list of 13. These centres areUniversity of Santa Barbara, CornellUniversity, University of California at LosAngeles, Stanford University, IBM ResearchLaboratories, Northwestern University,Harvard University and the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT). In total, morethan 30 universities have announced plansfor nanotech research centres since 1997(Leo, 2001). Further, the US is widelyTable 3: World-wide government funding for nanotechnologyresearch and development (US$million).A r e a 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3U S * 1 1 6 1 9 0 2 5 5 2 7 0 4 2 2 6 0 4 7 1 0We s t e r nE u r o p e 1 2 6 1 5 1 1 7 9 2 0 0 2 2 5 ~ 4 0 0 N AJ a p a n 1 2 0 1 3 5 1 5 7 2 4 5 4 6 5 ~ 6 5 0 N AO t h e r s * * 7 0 8 3 9 6 1 1 0 3 8 0 ~ 5 2 0 N ATo t a l 4 3 2 5 5 9 6 8 7 8 2 5 1 5 0 2 2 1 7 4 N A(% of 1997) 1 0 0 1 2 9 1 5 9 1 9 1 3 4 8 5 0 3 N ANA: not available.* Excluding non-federal spending e.g. California.** ‘Others’ includes Australia, Canada, China, Eastern Europe, theFormer Soviet Union, Singapore, Taiwan and other countries withnanotechnology R&D. For example, in Mexico there are 20 researchgroups working independently on nanotechnology. Korea, already aworld player in electronics, has an ambitious 10-year programme toattain a world-class position in nanotechnology (DTI, 2002).19Future Technologies, Today's Choicesregarded as the benchmark against whichnanotechnology funding should be compared(Roman, 2002). Indeed, Howard (2002)states that, ‘while other governments areinvesting in a range of nanotechnologyresearch, the US effort is by far the mostsubstantial.’ From 1985–1997 the totalsupport for projects related tonanotechnology was estimated at US$452million, coming in roughly equal parts fromthe NSF, various industrial sponsorship, andother government funding. Then in 2000, themuch-heralded NNI was launched – a multi-agency programme designed to provide a bigfunding boost for nanotechnology. There arecurrently 10 US government partners in theNNI3. These are shown in Table 4.Table 4 shows that the NSF and Departmentof Defence (DoD) are the two majorrecipients of investment in nanoscience andtechnology R&D. Indeed, the NSF hasdesignated ‘nanoscale science andengineering’ as one of its six priority areas,while the DoD has dedicated its funding toelaborating a ‘conceptual template forachieving new levels of war-fightingeffectiveness’ (DoD, 2002). This tableprovides a fairly accurate picture of currentresearch priorities in the US. However, statefunding, which can sometimes be substantial,is not included in the estimates. For example,the state of California, which is home tovirtually all the work in molecularnanotechnology, has invested US$100 millionin the creation of a California NanosystemsInstitute. And neither are the figures static;levels of funding are anticipated to increaserapidly once the economic benefits of USfunding begin to be felt, whether in newcompany start-up activity, or progresstowards military or social goals.2.2.5.2 Far EastTable 5 shows the levels of 2002 governmentspending on nanotechnology within fivecountries in the Far East. On average, thesefigures are lower than in the US although,given the increased purchasing power incountries such as China, they may beconsidered as relatively high (Roman, 2002).However, while the figures given are up-to-date, the time-scales over which they operateare ambiguous.Of all the countries shown in Table 5,Japan’s nanotech investments are by far thegreatest. Indeed, it is universally agreed thatJapan has the only fully co-ordinated andfunded national policy of nanotechnologyresearch. The most prominent product of thisTable 4: Breakdown of spending on the US’s NationalNanotechnology Initiative from 2001–2003 (US$million).Recipient 2001 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3a c t u a l e s t i m a t e p r o p o s e dNational ScienceF o u n d a t i o n 1 4 5 1 9 9 2 2 1Department of Defence 1 2 5 1 8 0 2 0 1Department of Energy 7 8 9 1 1 3 9National Aeronautics 0 4 6 4 9and Space AdministrationNational Institute 4 0 4 1 4 3of HealthNational Institute of 2 8 3 7 4 4Standards and Te c h n o l o g yEnvironmental 5 5 5Protection AgencyDepartment of 0 2 2Tr a n s p o r t a t i o nUS Department 0 2 5of AgricultureDepartment of Justice 1 1 1To t a l 4 2 2 6 0 4 7 1 0DTI, 2002.Table 5: Top five government spendingon nanotechnology in the Far East in 2002( U S $ m i l l i o n ) .C o u n t r y S p e n d i n gJ a p a n 7 5 0C h i n a 2 0 0K o r e a 1 5 0Taiwan 1 1 1S i n g a p o r e 4 0To t a l 1 2 5 1Roman, 2002.20national policy has been the Ministry ofEconomy, Trade and Industry (METI)programme on atomic manipulation,1991–2001, entitled Research andDevelopment of Ultimate Manipulation ofMolecules (Tam, 2001). The programme wasfunded at the ¥25 billion level(approximately US$210 million). Of thetotal, US$167 million has been allocated forthe development of microbots (Saxl, 2000).Nowadays, the Japanese government viewsthe successful development ofnanotechnology as key to restoration of itseconomy: nanotechnology is one of the fourstrategic platforms of Japan’s second basicplan for science and technology. Forexample, the Japanese government hasfounded the Expert Group onNanotechnology under the Japan Federationof Economic Organisations Committee onIndustrial Technology. In another initiative,which it calls its ‘e-Japan strategy’, theJapanese government aims to become ‘theworld’s most advanced IT nation within fiveyears’ (IT Strategic Headquarters, 2001).Japan’s government nanotechnologyexpenditures are given in Table 6.Although the figures given in Table 6 areimpressive, Roman (2002) believes that theannual 50% increase does cast some doubtover their accuracy. For while there is nodoubt that funding will continue to increase,increasing the number of researchersavailable to absorb this extra funding doesnot seem possible on an annual basis.2.2.5.3 European UnionAll European Union (EU) member states,except Luxembourg where no universities arelocated, have re s e a rch programmes. For somecountries, such as Germ a n y, Ireland orSweden, where nanotechnology is considere dof strategic importance, nanotechnologyp rogrammes have been established for severalyears. On the other hand, many countrieshave no specifically focused nanotechnologyinitiatives, but this re s e a rch is covered withinm o re general R&D programmes (Compano,2001). Table 7 summarises the situation forthe top six countries.The European Commission (EC) fundsnanoscience through its so-called FrameworkP rogramme (FP). The aim of the FP6 is top roduce bre a k t h rough technologies thatd i rectly benefit the EU, either economically ors o c i a l l y. Under this, e1.3 billion aree a rmarked for ‘nanotechnologies andnanosciences, knowledge-basedmultifunctional materials and new pro d u c t i o np rocesses and devices’ in the 2002–2006 FPout of a total budget of e11.3 billion. Thisthematic priority is only partly dedicated tonanoscience, while other thematic prioritiesalso have a nanotechnology component. Atfirst glance this may seem a small figurec o m p a red to the 2003 NNI budget of US$710million (e0.72 billion). However, it does nottake into account the substantial contributionsmade by individual member states (Compano,2001). The UK serves as a good example ofthis, where public spending onnanotechnology R&D was around £30 millionin 2001 (DTI, 2002), 70–80% of it from theEngineering and Physical Sciences Researc hCouncil (EPSRC). However, this is set to risequite rapidly in 2002–2003 as the newi n t e rd i s c i p l i n a ry re s e a rch collaborations anduniversity technology centres start to spread.Table 6: Estimated Japanese government nanotechnology researchand development expenditures (US$million).1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 31 2 0 1 3 5 1 5 7 2 4 5 4 6 5 ~ 7 5 0 ~ 1 0 0 0Roman, 2002.Table 7: Top six European governmentnanotechnology spending from 1998–2000 (em i l l i o n ) .C o u n t r y / i n s t i t u t i o n 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0G e r m a n y 4 9 . 0 5 8 . 0 6 3 . 0U K 3 2 . 0 3 5 . 0 3 9 . 0European Commission 2 6 . 0 2 7 . 0 2 9 . 0France 1 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 1 9 . 0N e t h e r l a n d s 4 . 7 6 . 2 6 . 9Sweden 3 . 4 5 . 6 5 . 8European total 1 3 9 . 8 1 6 4 . 7 1 8 4 . 0Compano, 2001.21Future Technologies, Today's Choices2.3 Applications and Markets2 . 3 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o nThe applications of nanotechnology areextremely diverse, mainly because the field isinterdisciplinary (Miles and Jarvis, 2001). Inaddition, the effect that nanotechnology willhave during the next decade is difficult toestimate because of potentially new andunanticipated applications. For example, ifsimply reducing the microstructure inexisting materials can make a big marketimpact, then this may, in turn, lead to awhole new set of applications. However, itseems reasonable to assume that during thenext two to three years most activity innanotechnology will still be in the area ofresearch, rather than completed projects orproducts. Holister (2002) estimates that thereare currently 455 public and privatecompanies, 95 investors, and 271 academicinstitutions and government entities that areinvolved in the near-term applications ofnanotechnology world-wide. The ability ofsuch institutions to transfer research resultsinto industrial applications can be indicatedby the number of filed patents. Companoand Hullman (2001) provide an analysis ofthis, using the number of nanopatents filed atthe European Patent Office (EPO) inMunich. Over the whole 1981–1998 period,the number of nanopatents rises from28–180 patents, with an average growth ratein the 1990s amounting to 7%.One important characteristic of activitygrouped within this section is that much ofthe work in near-term applications ofnanotechnologies is ‘market-pulled’: in eachcase, a particular and potentially profitableuse within industry and/or the consumermarket has been identified. However, as withthe difficulty in predicting the futureapplications of nanotechnology, manymarket analysts believe that it is too soon toproduce reliable figures for the global market– it is simply too early to say where andwhen markets and applications will come(DTI, 2002). In spite of these difficulties,some forecasts exist that do hint at the kindof growth we might expect.Most strikingly, the NSF predicts that thetotal market for nanotech products andservices will reach US$1 trillion by 2015(Roco and Bainbridge, 2001). The accuracyof this claim is difficult to assess, given thedoubts expressed above. Compano andHullman (2001) approach the problemthrough the comparison of publication(representing basic science or R&D) andpatent (representing technology applications)nanotechnology data with Grupp’s (1993)theory of Stylised TechnologicalDevelopment. As a result, they conclude thatthe peak of scientific activity is still to come,possibly in three to five years from now, andlarge-scale exploitation of nanotechnologicalresults might arise ten years from now.Considering the above comments aboutnanotechnological development and market-pull, it is instructive to examine which areasof industry will be affected first. MihailRoco, the NSF senior advisor fornanotechnology, believes that ‘early payoffswill come in computing and pharmaceuticals’(quoted in Leo, 2001), whereas Holister(2002) points out that medicine is a hugemarket, thereby implying that revenue fornanotechnology in this area could besubstantial. On the other hand, the NSFbelieve that, due to the high initial costsinvolved, ‘nanotechnology-based goods andservices will probably be introduced earlier inthose markets where performanceTable 8: Summary of future estimatedglobal markets in nanotechnology.Ye a r Estimated global market2 0 0 1 £31–55 billion2 0 0 5 £105 billion2 0 0 8 £500 billion2 0 1 0 £700 billion2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 5 Exceeds US$1 trillion (£0.6 trillion)DTI, 2002.22characteristics are especially important andprice is a secondary consideration’ (Roco andBainbridge, 2001). Examples of these aremedical applications and space exploration.The experience gained will then reducetechnical and production uncertainties andprepare these technologies for deploymentinto the market place.A good indication of the areas of current andnear-future commercial nanotech activity isthe type of patents made. Compano andHullman (2001) state that one-quarter of allpatents filed are focused on instrumentation.This supports the view that nanotechnologyis at the beginning of the development phaseof an enabling technology where the firstfocus is to develop suitable tools andfabrication techniques. The most importantindustrial sectors are informatics(information science), and pharmaceuticalsand chemicals. For the first sector,‘massivestorage devices, flat panel displays, orelectronic paper are prominent IT patentingareas. In addition to this, extendedsemiconductor approaches and alternativenanoscale information processing,transmission or storage devices aredominant.’ In the case of chemistry andpharmaceuticals, a large number of patentsare directed towards ‘finding new approachesfor drug delivery, medical diagnosis, andcancer treatments which are supposed tohave huge future markets. Nanotechnologypatenting for other sectors (e.g. aerospace,construction industries and food processing)show yearly increasing values, but theirabsolute numbers are relatively small.’ Insummary then, IT and medicine look set tohave an impact on the market first. The nexttwo sections deal with both these areas inmore detail. Following this, the widely citedpotential impacts of nanotechnology on theenergy and defence sectors are examined.2.3.2 InformaticsInformatics, or information science, can bethought of as consisting of three interrelatedareas: electronics, magnetics and optics. Thissection primarily concentrates on electronics,acknowledged by Compano (2001) as one ofthe major drivers of the world-wideeconomy. In fact, the current market forminiaturised systems is estimated at US$40billion and the market for IT peripherals tobe more than US$20 billion, althoughsemiconductor products have a dominantrole and their turnover grows at a higher ratethan the overall electronics market. The fieldis dominated by the US and Japan. In fact,apart from a few niche markets whereWestern European companies are able tocompete, recent technological breakthroughshave been largely due to majormanufacturers in these countries (Miles andJarvis, 2001). Japan has a particularly strongcommercial basis in this area, althoughJapanese R&D tends to be organised throughlines determined by the government (via theMicroMachine Centre): the METI fundsmuch of the work (US$100 million in the lastfive years). In the US too, government is veryinvolved in applied research. Here, theactivities of military funding agencies are ofnote – such institutions tend to be generousin their company funding in this field, evenwhen there is a clear commercial benefit forthe companies involved.In general, it is much harder to predict thecommercially successful technologies in theworld of electronics than in the world ofmaterials (Holister, 2002). However, if oneconsiders that the major driving force innanoscience for the last decade has beenmicroelectronics (Glinos, 1999), then itmakes sense that nanotechnology will playan important role in the future of thisindustry. The ETC Group (2002a) provide anotable statistic here, stating that by 2012the entire market will be dependent onnanotech. For, although there are fewnanotechnology products in the market placeat present, future growth is expected to bestrong, with a predicted composite annualgrowth rate of 30–40%, with emerging23Future Technologies, Today's Choicesmarkets around 70% (DTI, 2002). A numberof recent forecasts, although varying greatly,reflect this market confidence. For example,Miles and Jarvis (2001) put the market fornanotechnology-based IT and electronicsdevices at around US$70 billion by 2010. Asecond estimate states that nanotechnologywill yield an annual production of aboutUS$300 billion for the semiconductorindustry and about the same amount againfor global integrated circuits sales within10–15 years (NSF, 2001). Similarly, formicro- and nanotechnology systems in thetelecommunications sector, the market ispresently estimated as being in the order ofUS$35 billion with an anticipated compoundannual growth rate of around 70%.2.3.2.1 Moore’s LawThe microelectronics industry had lookedahead and seen serious challenges for itsbasic CMOS process. CMOS technology hasbeen refined for over 20 years, driving the‘line width’-the width of the smallest featurein an integrated circuit (IC)-from 10 mmdown to 0.25 µm (Doering, 2001). This isthe force behind Moore’s law, which predictsthat the processing power of ICs will doubleevery 18 months (Glinos, 1999). Based onMoore’s law, industry predictions aresummarised in Table 9.Semiconductor industry associations assumethat they will be close to introducing 100 nmground-rule technology by 2004 (Compano,2001). The significance of this lies in the factthat 100 nm is widely viewed as a kind of‘turning point’, where many radically newtechnologies will have to be developed. Tobegin with, optical lithography will becomeobsolete somewhere around 100 nm. As aresult, ‘next generation lithography’ optionsare currently being investigated. These aresummarised in Table 10.Excluding the printing process, eachfabrication technique essentially works onthe same principle where a reactive silicon-based agent is exposed to increasinglyfocused electromagnetic radiation: optical toX-rays representing a successive reduction inphoton wavelength; E-beam and ion beamprojection technologies using focusedelectron and ion beams respectively. All ofthese techniques are currently under activeevaluation-the aim is to have the appropriateequipment for the corresponding time-frame.To date, X-ray and ion bean projection haveTable 9: Anticipated technologicalcomputing developments for 2001–2014.F e a t u r e Ye a r2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4M e m o r yMinimum feature 1 5 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 7 0 5 0 3 5size DRAM(1/2 pitch in nm)G b i t s / c h i p 2 4 8 2 4 6 8 1 9 4Density 0 . 4 9 0 . 8 9 1 . 6 3 4 . 0 3 9 . 9 4 2 4 . 5 0( G b i t s / c m2)Logic (processing power)Minimum feature 1 0 0 8 0 6 5 4 5 3 0 – 3 2 2 0 – 2 2size (gate lengthin nm)Density (million 1 3 2 4 4 4 1 0 9 2 6 9 6 6 4transistors per cm2)Logic clock (GHz) 1 . 7 2 . 5 3 . 5 6 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 . 5DRAM: Dynamic Random Access Memory,a type of memory used in most personal computers.Adapted from Compano, 2001Table 10: Maturity of lithography options.Year of introduction 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9Minimum feature size 1 5 0 1 2 0 9 0 6 5Optical 193 nm X * XOptical 157 nm X XExtreme UV X XX - r a y s XElectron beam X XIon beam X XP r i n t i n g X*An ‘X’ designates the date at which the respectivefabrication technology is expected to become economicallyviable for mass production.Adapted from Compano, 2001.24received the greatest research investment(Compano, 2001). Printing technologies,however, are the ultimate goal, where sheetsof circuits can be rolled off the productionline like a printing press.2.3.2.2 Beyond Moore’s lawM o o re ’s law cannot continue indefinitely.In the years following 2015, additionald i fficulties are likely to be encountere d ,some of which may pose serious challengesto traditional semiconductor manufacturingtechniques. In part i c u l a r, limits to the degre ethat interconnections or wires betweentransistors may be scaled could in turn limitthe effective computation speed of devicesbecause of the pro p e rties and compatibilityof particular materials, despite incre m e n t a lp resent-day advances in these areas (Antonet al., 2001). Thermal dissipation in chipswith extremely high device-densities will alsopose a serious challenge. This issue is not somuch a fundamental limitation as it is aneconomic consideration, in that heatdissipation mechanisms and coolingtechnology may be re q u i red that add to thetotal system cost, thereby adversely aff e c t i n gthe marginal cost per computationalfunction for these devices. Eventually,h o w e v e r, CMOS technology may hit a morec rucial barr i e r, the quantum world, wherethe laws of physics operate in a veryd i ff e rent paradigm to that experienced ine v e ryday life. For example, futuristic circ u i t soperating on a quantum scale would have totake Heisenberg ’s Uncertainty Principle intoaccount. Overcoming this barrier is ad i ff e rent matter altogether, where thep roblems are no longer merely technological(Glinos, 1999), and industry has alre a d ybegun to investigate the problem in anumber of ways. Three of the mostcommonly cited appro a c h e s - m o l e c u l a rn a n o e l e c t ronics and quantum inform a t i o np rocessing (QIP)-are expanded upon below.In addition, computational self-assembly isacknowledged as a potentially keyfabrication technique of the future .Molecular nanoelectronics.Organicmolecules have been shown to have thenecessary properties to be used in electronics.Devices made of molecular componentswould be much smaller than those made byexisting silicon technologies and ultimatelyoffer the smallest electronics theoreticallypossible without moving into the realm ofsubatomic particles (Holister, 2002).Molecular electronic devices could operateas logic switches through chemical means,using synthesised organic compounds. Thesedevices can be assembled chemically in largenumbers and organised to form a computer.The main advantage of this approach issignificantly lower power consumption byindividual devices. Several approaches forsuch devices have been devised, andexperiments have shown evidence ofswitching behaviour for individual devices.For example, in ‘DNA computing’, the